Talk:M21 mortar carrier/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 01:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211: Article looks good! It's pretty short so I don't have many comments but here they are. I'll put this on hold for now until we can address the concerns below.

Other changes were the differences between the half-track that they were based on. I'm not sure you need this, it kind of goes without saying. Done
When you start talking about the M4 in the first paragraph, find a way to introduce it so readers have some context - something like "The M21 was the replacement for the M4 MMC, Done
In Development, you start by talking about the M4 and don't mention the M21 until the second paragraph. You need to introduce the M4 so readers have some context, something like The M21 was the replacement for the M4 MMC, whihc was used from xxxx to xxxx (if that's accurate). Done
In the lead, you talk about how the 81 mm mortar had insufficient power, but you don't mention that in the body. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Done[reply]

@Tomandjerry211: Always a pleasure working with you! Pass. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]